The Contrarian/Anti-Woke left continue trend of Anti-Democrat/Black & Dirtbag Leftist grift

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
51,719
Reputation
18,812
Daps
281,745
Didn't watch but I assume they're shytting on black voters.

Personally I think it's idiotic to move SC up. Michigan should be the first state, and replace Iowa completely. Keeping NH second makes sense, followed by NV. I'd have NC ahead of SC. Moving MA up would also make sense. Basically I want multiple contests in competitive, important states where you have a mixture of demographics.

-Urban/black
-Suburban/universities
-Rural/white

I feel like moving SC up hurts it from a strategic perspective. Imagine if SC was the first contest in 2008. Obama would almost certainly win it, and the victory would be dismissed on racial lines. "Of course he won the black state but can he win white voters" etc etc. Instead Obama was able to win Iowa first, barely lose NH, win NV, and then SC basically crowned him as the defacto frontrunner. That seems like a better position for SC to me.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,431
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
617,961
Reppin
The Deep State
:mjpls:





:mjpls:



:mjpls:






Biden Is Putting South Carolina First. I Won’t Vote for That.
Dec. 5, 2022
A photo shows several people gathered in a school hallway. One person signs a paper while another types at a computer. Nearby, two people stand near a table with a sign that says “I Voted.”
Voting was held at a high school in Charleston, S.C., during the 2020 Democratic primary.Hilary Swift for The New York Times
By Faiz Shakir

Mr. Shakir was the presidential campaign manager for Bernie Sanders in 2020.

Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning.

President Biden’s three-part plan to reform the Democratic presidential primary calendar was almost a home run — save for one flaw that dooms it entirely.

Our party’s lineup of states that nominate our presidential candidates every four years needs to change badly. The 2020 caucuses in Iowa — the state that has been first on the calendar for decades — were a disaster. But even more so, the sequencing of states must be transformed if we’re going to achieve the most important goal of the nominating process: to pick the strongest possible candidate to put before a national audience and to do so strategically in states that we must win in the general election.

The process should also mirror the democratic ideals underpinning our political system and the Democratic Party — grass-roots civic engagement through representative democracy. Candidates should be compelled to talk to ordinary Americans in conversational settings and persuasively earn their support. And the process needs to reflect the reality of the calendar, which exerts enormous influence on the kinds of candidates that parties select and on where they spend staggering resources.

Mr. Biden and the Democrats tasked with changing the calendar have made three central decisions in their proposal, which party officials unveiled last week and will move through a series of procedural steps and votes this winter and would require the cooperation of states chosen to go early. The first is that the Iowa caucus would no longer begin the process. This is the correct decision.

Being first is a special privilege, and Iowa must be held accountable. Accountability can be a tough pill to swallow; by definition, accountability requires a penalty for wrongdoing.

Since the 1970s, Iowa, the state famous for its unique town-meeting-style caucuses, has had the honor of being the first to register its recommendation for the Democratic nominee for president. Yet on Feb. 3, 2020, as the campaign manager for Bernie Sanders, I witnessed a historic travesty of election justice as Iowa’s Democratic Party-led caucus failed to do the one thing it absolutely had to do: count votes and declare an outcome. The state party was unable to report a winner on caucus night (and for many nights thereafter), overrelying on a faulty mobile app and subsequently pointing fingers at others for its own faults.

In Iowa alone, the Sanders campaign spent millions of dollars on ads and office rentals and hired the largest field staff of any campaign. We made a huge investment in trying to ensure Mr. Sanders would win the state, but its process failed us on election night — and the other Democratic candidates. :mjpls:
Iowa failed the country; because it couldn’t make elemental democracy work, it embarrassed a party that was trying to defeat Donald Trump by appealing to democratic foundations and principles. And most unfortunately, Iowa failed its own residents, who cycle after cycle had shown an incredible seriousness of purpose in fulfilling their unique role to choose a president. Iowans, more than people in any other state, were comfortable attending numerous campaign events, fielding door knocks and phone calls from strangers day after day and being immersed in a highly charged political atmosphere for what seemed like an eternity.

Iowans have had a proud caucus history of supporting upstart challengers who took on the status quo establishment, igniting the campaigns of outsider candidates like Mr. Sanders, :mjpls: Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter. Progressives performed well in the state, in part because Iowans engaged deeply in getting to know the candidates and the arguments that they were making. Iowans seem almost intrinsically averse to having elite opinion instruct them on the way to vote :mjpls:. For their part, the good people of Iowa did nothing to earn this sanction, and I mourn for them. We should only hope that their model of civic engagement will be heeded by the voters in the states that now have the opportunity to lead the nation.

But there’s another reason moving on from Iowa is the correct decision, and it dovetails with the second major, correct change Mr. Biden has proposed. The calendar makes the brilliant and important reform of elevating general election battleground states.

Nevada, New Hampshire, Georgia and then Michigan would all hold early February elections to help narrow and winnow the Democratic field. All four of these states have the distinction of being among the 10 closest states in the 2020 presidential election.

Why does it matter that general election battlegrounds are placed so early in the process? This is a Democratic team effort to invest in voter outreach, voter contact and voter enthusiasm at a much earlier stage, for a longer period, with more resources. The icing on the cake just happens to be that those battleground primary voters also get to select the nominee they think could best win their critical state in November.

The ultimate goal of this process is to win; the Biden reform proposal honors that by moving these four key states, from different regions of the country with their collectively diverse electorates, to the front of the line. And if that’s all it did, we could wrap up this essay here and declare victory.

But the Biden nomination calendar contains a fundamental, dooming flaw: the replacement of Iowa with South Carolina as the first state. The change would be comical if it weren’t tragic.

We all know why South Carolina got the nod. President Biden, Representative Jim Clyburn and many of his top supporters were buoyed by their campaign’s comeback in February 2020 when the state delivered Mr. Biden his first victory of the season :mjpls: — and a big one at that. The media attention from that victory, and the consolidation of the Democratic field that it yielded, helped catapult him to winning a majority of the following Super Tuesday states. And when Covid spread through the nation shortly after, the rest of the primary contests were effectively quarantined, and Mr. Biden iced his victory. None of that story is a reason to put South Carolina first, however.

South Carolina is not a battleground state: Mr. Trump carried it by double digits in 2020. It is way more ideologically and culturally conservative than our party and our nation. And the state is not trending in any way toward the Democratic Party. :mjpls: Just two years ago, we witnessed Jaime Harrison — now the chair of the Democratic National Committee — spend the eye-popping sum of $130 million to try to defeat Senator Lindsey Graham. After outraising and outspending Mr. Graham, Mr. Harrison still lost the 2020 Senate race decisively. Let’s not compel all other Democratic campaigns to waste more money that could be better spent elsewhere. If we really want to pick a diverse primary electorate, look to South Carolina’s neighbor to the north — an actual battleground state. :mjpls:

It bears repeating: Being first is a special honor. The state chosen for the task is rewarded in myriad ways. Iowa’s economy has benefited greatly over the years from the high level of campaign spending and travel. Aware of the process’s economic power, many of our Democratic campaigns employed union-friendly hotels, restaurants and vendors when we were active in Iowa. Good luck finding that in South Carolina, one of the fiercest anti-union, anti-labor states in the country. In fact, South Carolina is already first in the nation at something that it shouldn’t be proud of; it is the lowest-density union state in America. :mjpls: It should thus never be in contention to be first on our calendar.

As a D.N.C. delegate, I get to vote on the reform plan. As long as South Carolina remains first, I will vote no. I will urge other delegates to do the same. Let’s honor the principal goal of the primary calendar: to pick strong Democratic nominees who best represent our values and our principles. We’re so close to getting this right; let’s fix it.






@ShoryukenHaduken @Reflected @skylove4 @Kyle C. Barker @Neo The Resurrected ONE @ColdSlither @wire28 @Th3G3ntleman @ezrathegreat @Jello Biafra @humble forever @Dameon Farrow @Piff Perkins @Pressure @johnedwarduado
@Armchair Militant @panopticon @Tres Leches @ADevilYouKhow @dtownreppin214 @DrDealgood @Red Shield
 

Tair

Superstar
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
6,602
Reputation
2,671
Daps
33,111
Faiz Shakur isn't a good strategist. In fact, he sucks. His opinion is garbage and no one needs his approval because he can't win elections.

He is good at blundering campaigns though. So if the Dems want to lose in '24 follow Shakir's advice.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,431
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
617,961
Reppin
The Deep State
South Carolina is a terrible choice dude. It's not even a competitive state. There are plenty of black people in MI, NC, and MA. All of which would be far better choices.
Sometimes you gotta plant seeds.

The South is only gonna become more blue as people keep moving south and leaving the rust belt

I know theres a lot of black people in MA. I know Boston well.
 

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
51,719
Reputation
18,812
Daps
281,745
Sometimes you gotta plant seeds.

The South is only gonna become more blue as people keep moving south and leaving the rust belt

I know theres a lot of black people in MA. I know Boston well.

I don't care about planting seeds. I'm more interested in targeting competitive states NOW and winning elections. SC will not be a competitive state anytime soon.

Nor does it really benefit black voters to go from being in position to crown a winner as the fourth contest, to being the first where your impact is lower. Traditionally the Iowa caucus winner didn't win the democratic or republican nominee. Whereas SC catapulted the last three democratic candidates to the nomination because of where it was placed.

This is a terrible idea.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,431
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
617,961
Reppin
The Deep State
I don't care about planting seeds. I'm more interested in targeting competitive states NOW and winning elections. SC will not be a competitive state anytime soon.

Nor does it really benefit black voters to go from being in position to crown a winner as the fourth contest, to being the first where your impact is lower. Traditionally the Iowa caucus winner didn't win the democratic or republican nominee. Whereas SC catapulted the last three democratic candidates to the nomination because of where it was placed.

This is a terrible idea.
Don't use the word "tradition" for me

Iowa had a 50 year run.

If it doesn't work, we can change it.

Hell, we should be rotating a lot more anyways.

You see how NH is reacting to not being "first" anymore.

These white states can't stand having to compete.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,431
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
617,961
Reppin
The Deep State
I don't care about planting seeds. I'm more interested in targeting competitive states NOW and winning elections. SC will not be a competitive state anytime soon.

Nor does it really benefit black voters to go from being in position to crown a winner as the fourth contest, to being the first where your impact is lower. Traditionally the Iowa caucus winner didn't win the democratic or republican nominee. Whereas SC catapulted the last three democratic candidates to the nomination because of where it was placed.

This is a terrible idea.
:ufdup:

 

Piff Perkins

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
51,719
Reputation
18,812
Daps
281,745
Don't use the word "tradition" for me

Iowa had a 50 year run.

If it doesn't work, we can change it.

Hell, we should be rotating a lot more anyways.

You see how NH is reacting to not being "first" anymore.

These white states can't stand having to compete.

I have no issue with how NH is reacting to being disrespected by DNC officials straight up denigrating them. Just a couple days ago someone at the DNC said NH voters are just nerds and tech workers. This is the worst of politics to me. A union between cynical black southern machine politics and cynical white national party elites. Black people don't benefit from this and frankly lose some power.

MI
NH
NV
NC or GA. Or SC if Biden can't take the heat of them getting demoted

That is the better lineup. Michigan has large urban/black areas, large metropolitan areas with multiple major universities, large suburban areas, and large rural/white areas. It's a perfect first state, with the only flaw being it would be more expensive to compete in compared to Iowa or NH (but not to the point of hurting most candidates). It's also one of the most important states for winning the presidency, and allows candidates to make early connections and get national money into the coffers. Let's not forget Hillary's struggles there in the 2016 primary was one of the first major red flags that her candidacy was in trouble.
 

☑︎#VoteDemocrat

The Original
WOAT
Supporter
Joined
Dec 9, 2012
Messages
307,431
Reputation
-34,327
Daps
617,961
Reppin
The Deep State
I have no issue with how NH is reacting to being disrespected by DNC officials straight up denigrating them. Just a couple days ago someone at the DNC said NH voters are just nerds and tech workers. This is the worst of politics to me. A union between cynical black southern machine politics and cynical white national party elites. Black people don't benefit from this and frankly lose some power.

MI
NH
NV
NC or GA. Or SC if Biden can't take the heat of them getting demoted

That is the better lineup. Michigan has large urban/black areas, large metropolitan areas with multiple major universities, large suburban areas, and large rural/white areas. It's a perfect first state, with the only flaw being it would be more expensive to compete in compared to Iowa or NH (but not to the point of hurting most candidates). It's also one of the most important states for winning the presidency, and allows candidates to make early connections and get national money into the coffers. Let's not forget Hillary's struggles there in the 2016 primary was one of the first major red flags that her candidacy was in trouble.
SC was already 4th.

Did you know this?
 
Top